Mrs Thatcher

Press, 16 September 1976, Page 20

Mrs Thatcher

Sir, — I am in full agreement with the sentiments of yqur correspondent G. C. Suggate' regarding the provocative opinions expressed by Mrs Margaret Thatcher on the subject of capitalism during her taxpayer-financed visit to this country. Mrs Thatcher s, of course, perfectly entitled to endorse the capitalist doctrine if she wishes, but some of her remarks were in poor taste, coming as they did from a short-term visitor taking it

upon herself to influence the New Zealand voter in the exercise of his or her democratic right at the polling booth. Distinguished visitors to New Zealand, regardless of political persuasions, have hitherto properly refrained from anything which can be construed as interference in the internal domestic politics of the host country. The mild rebuke to Mrs Thatcher offered by the Leader of the Opposition was, in my view, both relevant and well merited. — Yours, etc., R. L. PLUCK. September 14. 1976.

Sir, . — Mrs Thatcher’s visit could be regarded by the advocates of free speech and a free democracy as the highlight of 1976. The ease and determination with which she defended thise rights in response to petty criticism from the Leader of the Opposition augurs well for the future of British democracy under her leadership. Mrs Thatcher’s fears of increasing socialisation in Britain would strike a responsive note with those in New Zealand who witnessed the attempt at building a new State-, un society by the last Labour Government. The genial understanding between our Prime Minister and Britain’s Labour leaders has been beneficial to our two countries, and it is gratifying to be able to look forward to a continuation of this relationship if there is a change of government there. — Yours, etc., J. F. GARVEY. September 14, 1976.

Sir, — No-one questions Graham Rhind’s right to believe what he chooses to believe about the Soviet Union, but when those beliefs testify to their fabrication from the fantasies of the mythology of anti-Soviet propaganda, rather than reality, one is entitled to ask on what grounds he claims to be qualified to lecture anyone on being “better informed on conditions in the Soviet Union.” His deploring of a power elite in the Soviet Union, for whose existence he is unable to adduce any proof, appears partisanlv selective, when he lavishes the uncritical enthusiasm of his adulation on the “highly intelligent, articulate and charming,” political leader of the indubitable power elite in the United Kingdom, whose parasitic existence, it not only owes to the labour of the British worker but whose continued survival is maintained by massive injections of money into its economy, by the Government, exacted from the workers in the form of taxes. — Yours, etc., M. CREEL. September 14, 1976.

Sir, — Mrs Thatcher is a most welcome visitor to our humble shores, as are all people of good will and integrity whatever their race, colour or creed. Mrs Thatcher, no doubt, is an astute politician by any standards, and should not abuse our well-known hospitality by meddling in our political field. She surely would not

go into the house of friends and tell them how to run their daily affairs. Would the British people appreciate Mr Rowling's going to Britain and travelling about the country, expressing his views on British politics? I state with stolid conviction that the Tories would scream, blue murder, as I hope the Australians do, if she starts the same politicking in their country. — Yours, etc., D. L. ROBINSON. September 14, 1976.

Sir,—The propriety of a visiting politician involving himself or herself in local politics is to be questioned. International politics are based on a rigid code of conventions for conduct and depend on this code for success. One of the strictest rules is that politicians should be scrupulous in not involving themselves in political issues in the country they are visiting. This is accepted throughout the diplomatic world. The reasons are obvious. If Mrs Thatcher is undertaking her present tour for the purpose of her education in foreign affairs this is the first lesson she should learn.. I, for one, would not appreciate Mr Callaghan coming to New Zealand as an official guest and commenting on New Zealand politics. — Yours, etc., R. B. W. McCUTCHEON. September 15, 1976.

Sir, — In defence of Mrs Thatcher, Graham Rhind discredits the Russians and all things Russian, and probably correctly points out corruption and lack of consumer goods and a “power elite” who enjoy opulent privileges etc. Is there a possibility that Graham Rhind and his “cogmates” could be pursuaded to remove their blinkers and have a good look at non-communistic systems that exist worldwide: on the African Continent, including Arab, black and white, Argentina, Chile, India, Mexico, Pakistan, South Korea, and until recently South Vietnam? It always amused me that a drought-stricken wheat crop in the United States is a natural failing while the same situation in the U.S.S.R. is a communist failure. Mrs Thatcher represents the extreme Right, as dangerous as the extreme Left, and a primary cause of communism. — Yours, etc., H. D. BELL. September 14, 1976.

Sir, — Mrs Thatcher is a woman politician believing in the divine right of kings and queens rule. Vive the black rose which symbolises Ireland? — Yours, etc., ROSIE I. WITTY. September 15, 1976.

Sir, —- Mr Muldoon and Mrs Thatcher’s mutual admiration is based on their com-monly-shared belief in opportunity, regardless of consequence. Capitalism is old and tired and no longer works as it once did—i.e. exploitation of the many by

the few. By the same token socialism does not give us Utopia. Together these philosophies polarise people and prolong the class war. It is a great shame that the National Party’s need for a messiah from across the water could not have been met by somebody who preached the value of co-operation. — Yours, etc., D. W. O. JONES. September 15, 1976. [This correspondence is now closed. — Editor.)